The pitfalls of England's fluid strategy

By Stuart Barnes

12:01AM GMT 01 Mar 2004

England need to tighten the structure of their attacking framework if they are to maximise the potential of their fast and deliberately loose running game. It is a paradox Clive Woodward, their head coach, would do well to address before England's attacking game unravels.

It is not that England were bad, per se, at Murrayfield. There was much to admire in the team's effort. The unflattering negatives of the game, so imperative in their own right - defence and pressure - were extremely positive and impressive, as one would expect.

But the creative positives were a source of negatives, hence the grudging reactions to a 35-point away win. Whereas England regard the shape of their defensive pattern as almost sacrosanct, there is no such reverence for the attacking element.

There was little or no utilisation of the excellent stream of set-piece ball. England worked on wearing Scotland down through multi-phase rugby. There is nothing wrong with that, but the absence of any strike moves deprives a side of attacking variety.

Related Articles

To attain excellence at first phase is a matter of specific tasks being expertly handled, such as the timing of a fly-half's pass, the subtle line of an inside centre - areas in which England were starting to excel two years ago.

All that disappeared in Australia when back play lost any direction as players operating the 'no numbers' policy loosened up in offence. England may have won the tournament but that does not make the team perfect.

Indeed, if we are merely to stand back and admire the winning habit, the team and manager should consider retiring right now. England, though, are not sitting on their laurels. Woodward has repeatedly stated that the team were below their best in Australia. It is the lack of a rigid attacking spine that is the prime explanation behind his comments.

The idea of a flexible, attacking back four is not unique. John Hart, of New Zealand, attempted to play Christian Cullen, then the greatest attacking full-back in the world, in the outside centre channel in 1999. It failed because Cullen's majesty lay in his combination of pace and running lines.

Jason Robinson, England's current Cullen, has different qualities, making the possibility of success likelier. Italy are no New Zealand or Australia, but there was a spark in Rome that could yet turn into a bonfire.

Dropping deep in order to counterattack, late switches in the wide channels with the back three. His talent is a significant one that Woodward, understandably, wants to utilise along with the other potent wide runners.

Robinson played wide channels against Italy and it worked, frequently making use of poor Italian kicking and ball retention. Against Scotland, Robinson, along with several players, was as much a threat to his own team's attack, drifting infield into other players' channels.

England like statistics, and doubtless a close analysis of who got their hands on the ball will be seen in some quarters as a virtue. It was not; it was a massive negative, breaking the link between scrum and fly-half, rendering centre Will Greenwood nigh impotent as a creative force.

A few years ago England told Steve Thompson to carry as much as possible. The hooker became a nuisance even as statistical evidence proclaimed him as man of the match. It is happening again with Robinson, Thompson, Phil Vickery and Ben Cohen frequently inserting themselves into the vital link positions of the team.

This habit revolves around quantity of carrying and not quality. If players are thinking frequent involvement is good for its own sake, a rethink is necessary or England are going to trundle into an impasse of their own making.